The federal rescue of Wall Street didn’t fix the economy – it created a permanent bailout state based on a Ponzi-like confidence scheme. And the worst may be yet to come

By Matt TaibbiRolling StoneJanuary 04, 2013

It has been four long winters since the federal government, in the hulking, shaven-skulled, Alien Nation-esque form of then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, committed $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue Wall Street from its own chicanery and greed. To listen to the bankers and their allies in Washington tell it, you'd think the bailout was the best thing to hit the American economy since the invention of the assembly line. Not only did it prevent another Great Depression, we've been told, but the money has all been paid back, and the government even made a profit. No harm, no foul – right?

Wrong.

It was all a lie – one of the biggest and most elaborate falsehoods ever sold to the American people. We were told that the taxpayer was stepping in – only temporarily, mind you – to prop up the economy and save the world from financial catastrophe. What we actually ended up doing was the exact opposite: committing American taxpayers to permanent, blind support of an ungovernable, unregulatable, hyperconcentrated new financial system that exacerbates the greed and inequality that caused the crash, and forces Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to increase risk rather than reduce it. The result is one of those deals where one wrong decision early on blossoms into a lush nightmare of unintended consequences. We thought we were just letting a friend crash at the house for a few days; we ended up with a family of hillbillies who moved in forever, sleeping nine to a bed and building a meth lab on the front lawn.

But the most appalling part is the lying. The public has been lied to so shamelessly and so often in the course of the past four years that the failure to tell the truth to the general populace has become a kind of baked-in, official feature of the financial rescue. Money wasn't the only thing the government gave Wall Street – it also conferred the right to hide the truth from the rest of us. And it was all done in the name of helping regular people and creating jobs. "It is," says former bailout Inspector General Neil Barofsky, "the ultimate bait-and-switch."

Absolutely outrageous. Didn't this socialist cop know that giving fecal sandwiches to homeless people only creates dependency? Is he not aware of the hellish nightmare that this collectivist mentality has imposed upon countries like Venezuela and North Korea? Apparently not!

An officer from the San Antonio Police Department has been fired for allegedly attempting to feed a fecal sandwich to a homeless person, several sources have confirmed.

The City Council was briefed on the matter during a private session Thursday, sources said. The officer reportedly placed fecal matter between two pieces of bread and gave it to a homeless person.

“This was a vile and disgusting act that violates our guiding principles of ‘treating all with integrity, compassion, fairness and respect,’ Chief William McManus said in a prepared statement. “The fact that his fellow officers were so disgusted with his actions that they reported him to Internal Affairs demonstrates that this type of behavior will never be tolerated. The action of this one former officer in no way reflects the actions of all the other good men and women who respectfully serve this community.”

The alleged incident occurred in May, when Officer Matthew Luckhurst, a five-year veteran of the department, bragged to a fellow officer that “he had picked up some feces, placed it in a slice of bread, and put it in a Styrofoam container next to the unknown homeless male,” according to a press release from the chief’s office. “The officer reported that he told Luckhurst to go back and throw it away. The officer said he saw Luckhurst go back and he assumed that Luckhurst discarded the container.”

The incident was reported to Internal Affairs in July. Police Department officials have been unable to locate the homeless man.

The right yearns for an era when churches and local organizations took care of society's weakest—an era that never existed and can't exist today.

MIKE KONCZALThe AtlanticMarch 24, 2014

Ideology is as much about understanding the past as shaping the future. And conservatives tell themselves a story, a fairy tale really, about the past, about the way the world was and can be again under Republican policies. This story is about the way people were able to insure themselves against the risks inherent in modern life. Back before the Great Society, before the New Deal, and even before the Progressive Era, things were better. Before government took on the role of providing social insurance, individuals and private charity did everything needed to insure people against the hardships of life; given the chance, they could do it again.

This vision has always been implicit in the conservative ascendancy. It existed in the 1980s, when President Reagan announced, “The size of the federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern,” and called for voluntarism to fill in the yawning gaps in the social safety net. It was made explicit in the 1990s, notably through Marvin Olasky’s The Tragedy of American Compassion, a treatise hailed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and William Bennett, which argued that a purely private nineteenth-century system of charitable and voluntary organizations did a better job providing for the common good than the twentieth-century welfare state. This idea is also the basis of Paul Ryan’s budget, which seeks to devolve and shrink the federal government at a rapid pace, lest the safety net turn “into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.” It’s what Utah Senator Mike Lee references when he says that the “alternative to big government is not small government” but instead “a voluntary civil society.” As conservatives face the possibility of a permanent Democratic majority fueled by changing demographics, they understand that time is running out on their cherished project to dismantle the federal welfare state.

But this conservative vision of social insurance is wrong. It’s incorrect as a matter of history; it ignores the complex interaction between public and private social insurance that has always existed in the United States. It completely misses why the old system collapsed and why a new one was put in its place. It fails to understand how the Great Recession displayed the welfare state at its most necessary and that a voluntary system would have failed under the same circumstances. Most importantly, it points us in the wrong direction.

Absolutely outrageous. Didn't this socialist cop know that giving fecal sandwiches to homeless people only creates dependency? Is he not aware of the hellish nightmare that this collectivist mentality has imposed upon countries like Venezuela and North Korea? Apparently not!

An officer from the San Antonio Police Department has been fired for allegedly attempting to feed a fecal sandwich to a homeless person, several sources have confirmed.

The City Council was briefed on the matter during a private session Thursday, sources said. The officer reportedly placed fecal matter between two pieces of bread and gave it to a homeless person.

“This was a vile and disgusting act that violates our guiding principles of ‘treating all with integrity, compassion, fairness and respect,’ Chief William McManus said in a prepared statement. “The fact that his fellow officers were so disgusted with his actions that they reported him to Internal Affairs demonstrates that this type of behavior will never be tolerated. The action of this one former officer in no way reflects the actions of all the other good men and women who respectfully serve this community.”

The alleged incident occurred in May, when Officer Matthew Luckhurst, a five-year veteran of the department, bragged to a fellow officer that “he had picked up some feces, placed it in a slice of bread, and put it in a Styrofoam container next to the unknown homeless male,” according to a press release from the chief’s office. “The officer reported that he told Luckhurst to go back and throw it away. The officer said he saw Luckhurst go back and he assumed that Luckhurst discarded the container.”

The incident was reported to Internal Affairs in July. Police Department officials have been unable to locate the homeless man.

This piece is about one of the biggest taboos of our times. About a truth that is seldom acknowledged, and yet – on reflection – cannot be denied. The truth that we are living in an inverse welfare state.

These days, politicians from the left to the right assume that most wealth is created at the top. By the visionaries, by the job creators, and by the people who have “made it”. By the go-getters oozing talent and entrepreneurialism that are helping to advance the whole world.

Now, we may disagree about the extent to which success deserves to be rewarded – the philosophy of the left is that the strongest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden, while the right fears high taxes will blunt enterprise – but across the spectrum virtually all agree that wealth is created primarily at the top.

So entrenched is this assumption that it’s even embedded in our language. When economists talk about “productivity”, what they really mean is the size of your paycheck. And when we use terms like “welfare state”, “redistribution” and “solidarity”, we’re implicitly subscribing to the view that there are two strata: the makers and the takers, the producers and the couch potatoes, the hardworking citizens – and everybody else.

In reality, it is precisely the other way around. In reality, it is the waste collectors, the nurses, and the cleaners whose shoulders are supporting the apex of the pyramid. They are the true mechanism of social solidarity. Meanwhile, a growing share of those we hail as “successful” and “innovative” are earning their wealth at the expense of others. The people getting the biggest handouts are not down around the bottom, but at the very top. Yet their perilous dependence on others goes unseen. Almost no one talks about it. Even for politicians on the left, it’s a non-issue.

To understand why, we need to recognise that there are two ways of making money. The first is what most of us do: work. That means tapping into our knowledge and know-how (our “human capital” in economic terms) to create something new, whether that’s a takeout app, a wedding cake, a stylish updo, or a perfectly poured pint. To work is to create. Ergo, to work is to create new wealth.

But there is also a second way to make money. That’s the rentier way: by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others’ expense, using his power to claim economic benefit.

For those who know their history, the term “rentier” conjures associations with heirs to estates, such as the 19th century’s large class of useless rentiers, well-described by the French economist Thomas Piketty. These days, that class is making a comeback. (Ironically, however, conservative politicians adamantly defend the rentier’s right to lounge around, deeming inheritance tax to be the height of unfairness.) But there are also other ways of rent-seeking. From Wall Street to Silicon Valley, from big pharma to the lobby machines in Washington and Westminster, zoom in and you’ll see rentiers everywhere.

There is no longer a sharp dividing line between working and rentiering. In fact, the modern-day rentier often works damn hard. Countless people in the financial sector, for example, apply great ingenuity and effort to amass “rent” on their wealth. Even the big innovations of our age – businesses like Facebook and Uber – are interested mainly in expanding the rentier economy. The problem with most rich people therefore is not that they are coach potatoes. Many a CEO toils 80 hours a week to multiply his allowance. It’s hardly surprising, then, that they feel wholly entitled to their wealth.

It may take quite a mental leap to see our economy as a system that shows solidarity with the rich rather than the poor. So I’ll start with the clearest illustration of modern freeloaders at the top: bankers. Studies conducted by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements – not exactly leftist thinktanks – have revealed that much of the financial sector has become downright parasitic. How instead of creating wealth, they gobble it up whole.

Don’t get me wrong. Banks can help to gauge risks and get money where it is needed, both of which are vital to a well-functioning economy. But consider this: economists tell us that the optimum level of total private-sector debt is 100% of GDP. Based on this equation, if the financial sector only grows, it won’t equal more wealth, but less. So here’s the bad news. In the United Kingdom, private-sector debt is now at 157.5%. In the United States, the figure is 188.8%.

In other words, a big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body. It’s not creating anything new, merely sucking others dry. Bankers have found a hundred and one ways to accomplish this. The basic mechanism, however, is always the same: offer loans like it’s going out of style, which in turn inflates the price of things like houses and shares, then earn a tidy percentage off those overblown prices (in the form of interest, commissions, brokerage fees, or what have you), and if the shit hits the fan, let Uncle Sam mop it up.

The financial innovation concocted by all the math whizzes working in modern banking (instead of at universities or companies that contribute to real prosperity) basically boils down to maximising the total amount of debt. And debt, of course, is a means of earning rent. So for those who believe that pay ought to be proportionate to the value of work, the conclusion we have to draw is that many bankers should be earning a negative salary; a fine, if you will, for destroying more wealth than they create.

Bankers are the most obvious class of closet freeloaders, but they are certainly not alone. Many a lawyer and an accountant wields a similar revenue model. Take tax evasion. Untold hardworking, academically degreed professionals make a good living at the expense of the populations of other countries. Or take the tide of privatisations over the past three decades, which have been all but a carte blanche for rentiers. One of the richest people in the world, Carlos Slim, earned his millions by obtaining a monopoly of the Mexican telecom market and then hiking prices sky high. The same goes for the Russian oligarchs who rose after the Berlin Wall fell, who bought up valuable state-owned assets for song to live off the rent.

But here comes the rub. Most rentiers are not as easily identified as the greedy banker or manager. Many are disguised. On the face of it, they look like industrious folks, because for part of the time they really are doing something worthwhile. Precisely that makes us overlook their massive rent-seeking.

Take the pharmaceutical industry. Companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer regularly unveil new drugs, yet most real medical breakthroughs are made quietly at government-subsidised labs. Private companies mostly manufacture medications that resemble what we’ve already got. They get it patented and, with a hefty dose of marketing, a legion of lawyers, and a strong lobby, can live off the profits for years. In other words, the vast revenues of the pharmaceutical industry are the result of a tiny pinch of innovation and fistfuls of rent.

The U.S. Agriculture Department is encouraging schools to work more closely with parents to address delinquent accounts and ensure children don’t go hungry.

By Morgan LeeAssociated PressJuly 7, 2017

SANTA FE, N.M. — Teaching assistant Kelvin Holt watched as a preschool student fell to the back of a cafeteria line during breakfast in Killeen, Texas, as if trying to hide.

“The cash register woman says to this 4-year-old girl, verbatim, ‘You have no money,’” said Holt, describing the incident last year. A milk carton was taken away, and the girl’s food was dumped in the trash. “She did not protest, other than to walk away in tears.”

Holt has joined a chorus of outrage against lunchroom practices that can humiliate children as public school districts across the United States rethink how they cope with unpaid student lunch debts.

The U.S. Agriculture Department is requiring districts to adopt policies this month for addressing meal debts and to inform parents at the start of the academic year.

The agency is not specifically barring most of the embarrassing tactics, such as serving cheap sandwiches in place of hot meals or sending students home with conspicuous debt reminders, such as hand stamps. But it is encouraging schools to work more closely with parents to address delinquent accounts and ensure children don’t go hungry.

“Rather than a hand stamp on a kid to say, ‘I need lunch money,’ send an email or a text message to the parent,” said Tina Namian, who oversees the federal agency’s school meals policy branch.

Meanwhile, some states are taking matters into their own hands, with New Mexico this year becoming the first to outlaw school meal shaming and several others weighing similar laws. Oregon’s bill was sent to Gov. Kate Brown this week for approval.

Close down the dept of education, use that money to provide free lunch for all school children. plus, those really in need, can come early and enjoy a good breakfast at school -- entirely & completely necessary for a child to be educated.

It's true Jackson Holly -- a good economy is what is really needed.I had so the very best food in schools growing up. Hot, made on the spot, not packaged. Water out of the fountain was good too before the fluoridation began.

There's something really wrong, in-the first-place, that any human being is hungry and/or starves to death. Wait I forgot --->Either Climate Change or Putin did it.

Isn't it funny. The soybean was going to "feed the world." yeah right -- when did that happen? Instead, soybeans were gmo'd to deliver estrogen to the populace as an eugenics operation. There are those who need to answer for their high crimes against humanity.

Climate change. Climate change is increasingly viewed as a current and future cause of hunger and poverty. Increasing drought, flooding, and changing climatic patterns requiring a shift in crops and farming practices that may not be easily accomplished are three key issues. See the Hunger Notes special report: Hunger, the environment, and climate change for further information, especially articles in the section: Climate change, global warming and the effect on poor people such as Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, study says and Could food shortages bring down civilization?http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/love, e

... serious question: When did we changeour schools into soup kitchens for the poor?No such thing as a 'free lunch' (certainly not breakfast) when I was growing up.

I used to bring a metal lunch box. Seems like most kids did since we had to store them in an appointed area until lunchtime. Usually a soggy bologna sandwich with some chips in a sandwich bag. Maybe 2-3 cheap cookies for dessert. Thermos had Kool-Aid in it. I don't recall many kids at all paying for a meal.

Vaguely remember a cafeteria in skool. Kids were responsible for taking an oversized, stinky sponge and wiping down tables. There's also sketchy memory of a large, metal spoon banged on the table to get our attention along with a lot of adult yelling telling us to pipe down.

Aaah....memories.

Logged

The number one cause of all human poverty, misery, and death is not global warming. It’s GLOBAL LYING.

... Third World countries produce about 97% of worldpopulation growth each year! They are popping out babiesright and left that they ARE NOT able to care for ... they(and their globalist mentors) want ever more billionsin handouts from us to prop up this insanity ... PLUShaul as many into our neighborhoods and onto oursocial services gravy train and into our schools aspossible.

Here is a simple graphic comparing birth rates etc., betweenTANZANIA and Spain ... and the comparison holds up prettywell across the board as far as I can tell.

As G. Edward Griffin explained it in chapter 10 of his book, The Creature from Jekyll Island (all emphasis original):

---------------------------------------------

MONEY WOULD VANISH WITHOUT DEBT

It is difficult for Americans to come to grips with the fact that their total money supply is backed by nothing but debt, and it is even more mind boggling to visualize that, if everyone paid back all that was borrowed, there would be no money left in existence. That's right, there would not be one penny in circulation -- all coins and all paper currency would be returned to bank vaults -- and there would be not one dollar in any one's checking account. In short, all money would disappear.

Marriner Eccles was the Governor of the Federal Reserve System in 1941. On September 30 of that year, Eccles was asked to give testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Currency. The purpose of the hearing was to obtain information regarding the role of the Federal Reserve in creating conditions that led to the depression of the 1930s. Congressman Wright Patman, who was Chairman of that committee, asked how the Fed got the money to purchase two billion dollars worth of government bonds in 1933. This is the exchange that followed.

ECCLES: We created it.PATMAN: Out of what?ECCLES: Out of the right to issue credit money.PATMAN: And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our government's credit?ECCLES: That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money.

It must be realized that, while money may represent an asset to selected individuals, when it is considered as an aggregate of the total money supply, it is not an asset at all. A man who borrows $1,000 may think that he has increased his financial position by that amount but he has not. His $1,000 cash asset is offset by his $1,000 loan liability, and his net position is zero. Bank accounts are exactly the same on a larger scale. Add up all the bank accounts in the nation, and it would be easy to assume that all that money represents a gigantic pool of assets which support the economy. Yet, every bit of this money is owed by someone. Some will owe nothing. Others will owe many times what they possess. All added together, the national balance is zero. What we think is money is but a grand illusion. The reality is debt.

Robert Hemphill was the Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta. In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money, Hemphill said this:

If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible -- but there it is.

With the knowledge that money in America is based on debt, it should not come as a surprise to learn that the Federal Reserve System is not the least interested in seeing a reduction in debt in this country, regardless of public utterances to the contrary. Here is the bottom line from the System's own publications. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia says: "A large and growing number of analysts, on the other hand, now regard the national debt as something useful, if not an actual blessing....[They believe] the national debt need not be reduced at all."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago adds: "Debt -- public and private -- is here to stay. It plays an essential role in economic processes.... What is required is not the abolition of debt, but its prudent use and intelligent management."

WHAT'S WRONG WITH A LITTLE DEBT?

There is a kind of fascinating appeal to this theory. It gives those who expound it an aura of intellectualism, the appearance of being able to grasp a complex economic principle that is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. And, for the less academically minded, it offers the comfort of at least sounding moderate. After all, what's wrong with a little debt, prudently used and intelligently managed? The answer is nothing, provided the debt is based on an honest transaction. There is plenty wrong with it if it is based upon fraud.

An honest transaction is one in which a borrower pays an agreed upon sum in return for the temporary use of a lender's asset. That asset could be anything of tangible value. If it were an automobile, for example, then the borrower would pay "rent." If it is money, then the rent is called "interest." Either way, the concept is the same.

When we go to a lender -- either a bank or a private party -- and receive a loan of money, we are willing to pay interest on the loan in recognition of the fact that the money we are borrowing is an asset which we want to use. It seems only fair to pay a rental fee for that asset to the person who owns it. It is not easy to acquire an automobile, and it is not easy to acquire money -- real money, that is. If the money we are borrowing was earned by someone's labor and talent, they are fully entitled to receive interest on it. But what are we to think of money that is created by the mere stroke of a pen or the click of a computer key? Why should anyone collect a rental fee on that?

When banks place credits into your checking account, they are merely pretending to lend you money. In reality, they have nothing to lend. Even the money that non-indebted depositors have placed with them was originally created out of nothing in response to someone else's loan. So what entitles the banks to collect rent on nothing? It is immaterial that men everywhere are forced by law to accept these nothing certificates in exchange for real goods and services. We are talking here, not about what is legal, but what is moral.

---------------------------------------------

The mere fact that the vast majority of Americans need to have this explained to them in the first place is precisely why our economy is in the mess it's in.

... I know these questions are your passion andyou are very knowledgeable ... and I don'tdisagree on many aspects.

~~~~~~~~~~~

What is Islamic Banking?

Islamic banking refers to a system of banking or banking activity that is consistent with the principles of the Shari'ah (Islamic rulings) and its practical application through the development of Islamic economics. The principles which emphasise moral and ethical values in all dealings have wide universal appeal. Shari'ah prohibits the payment or acceptance of interest charges (riba) for the lending and accepting of money, as well as carrying out trade and other activities that provide goods or services considered contrary to its principles. While these principles were used as the basis for a flourishing economy in earlier times, it is only in the late 20th century that a number of Islamic banks were formed to provide an alternative basis to Muslims although Islamic banking is not restricted to Muslims.

In the United States a quiet financial revolution is going on under the radar of the public eye. It's the rise of Islamic financial institutions — ranging from small community banks in the Midwest to nationwide investment banks and brokerage firms.... In addition to the principle of no profit on loans, the bank's success is credited to "serving the community and local immigrant entrepreneurs," according to CEO Abdul-Rahman. By offering low-cost financing, the bank often beats rivals, he explains, noting that the bank has a varied list of customers, including small businesses, local churches and synagogues, in addition to Islamic centers and schools.

WESTERN television has certainly promoted the idea of investment/entrepreneurship via shows like Shark Tank and Dragon's Den. Often this gets followed up with a success story. Everybody wins.

If banks were simply denied their privileged status of fractional reserve lending, I could see them at least trying out the investor role as a pilot program. Of course, that would require a bit of cognition and effort within the banking industry. They would also need to think in terms of “America first” - something that has heavy resistance ATM due to globalist tendencies.

Usury and “rent” are the biggest scams on the planet since they require the recipient of funding to do absolutely nothing. No effort. No labor. Republicans love to invoke “if a man doesn't work, then he doesn't eat” ethic. Yet banks, landlords, and several congressman routinely violate this idea.

OK, back to the eeeeviil moozlim menace (not funded in any way by the west, we swear!)

Carry on.

Logged

The number one cause of all human poverty, misery, and death is not global warming. It’s GLOBAL LYING.

... I simply posited the moooslum banking systemas an example of a 'no interest' system and askedhow well it has worked out for the third world. Ifthe moooslum/3rd world economic system is workingbetter than that of the West, then let's change ours today!

... is this better?

Quote

How Do Islamic Banks Earn Money Without Using Interest?

In order to earn money without charging interest, Islamic banks use equity-participation systems. This means that if a bank loans money to a business, the business pays back the loan without interest, but it gives the bank a share in its profits. If the business defaults on the loan or does not earn any profits, the bank does not receive any profit either.

For example, in 1963, Egyptians formed an Islamic bank in Mit Ghmar. When the bank loaned money to businesses, it did so on a profit-sharing model. To reduce risk, the bank only approved about 40% of its business loan applications, but the default ratio was zero.

When Islamic banking was first introduced to the Middle East more than 40 years ago, sceptics labelled the industry a sham and an effort to rebrand conventional banking products in a misleading way.

At that time, no one could have foreseen that sharia-compliant banking could grow into the $1.1tn global industry that it has become today. Whether one accepts it as a financial phenomenon or not, the numbers speak for themselves.

Bankers in Dubai say the debate over the sustainability of Islamic finance is over and it is rapidly becoming an important revenue generator for some of the world’s biggest lenders “We are continuing to expand,” says Afaq Khan, the Dubai-based chief executive of Saadiq, Standard Chartered’s Islamic banking arm.

Aah. Why won't that happen? Because nobody in a position of low-risk, low-effort will voluntarily move into a position of higher-risk, higher-effort unless they have to. I speak of the aforementioned bankers, landlords, and congressmen.

Two things that can compel a change:

1. Change of law.2. Change of public opinion that reflects negatively on current business practices.

Even though the law says that my bank must send me paper statements, the bank has found a way around that. They now charge an outrageous fee for receiving paper statements and have offered the statements for free if and only if I sign up for them online. Many other banks think this is a super idea and have followed. This tells me that the current attitude within these professions is to do even less while making more money on their end. It's now a sense of entitlement to everybody else's money. The hypocrisy of “man doesn't work, man doesn't eat” couldn't be thicker.

Logged

The number one cause of all human poverty, misery, and death is not global warming. It’s GLOBAL LYING.